Jagdishkumar Shivjibhai Virda Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
Summary: The appeal concerned Assessment Year 2016-17 and arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under section-250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 28.06.2024. The CIT(A) order arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 dated 21.12.2018.
The assessee, an individual, had filed his return for AY 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.6,090/- and agricultural income of Rs.20,32,250/-. The return was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under sections 143(2) and 143(1) were issued. According to the order, the assessee could not properly substantiate the agricultural income claim before the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer noted gross agricultural receipts of Rs.67,44,850/- and agricultural expenditure claimed to the extent of Rs.20,32,250/-, with the entire amount of Rs.20,32,250/- claimed as exempt income. To verify the agricultural income, the Assessing Officer sought supporting evidence including land records, details of crops cultivated, sales bills, expenditure vouchers and other relevant documents. The assessee submitted only a simple online reply without documentary evidence. In the absence of the necessary details and supporting documents, the assessment was completed on the basis of material available on record, determining total income at Rs.69,03,550/-.
The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed because of non-appearance on consecutive dates, with the assessment order being upheld. The assessee thereafter approached the Tribunal. At the hearing, the Departmental Representative pointed out that there was a delay of 607 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, while the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of the delay.
The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was a habitual defaulter, resulting in dismissal of the proceedings for non-compliance. In response, the assessee’s Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee was suffering from serious physical ailment, including disability arising from post polio applications, which prevented him from effectively pursuing the appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that the assessee became aware of the order only when his bank account was attached for recovery of demand. The assessee consequently sought condonation of delay and another opportunity to substantiate the agricultural income claim through relevant documentary evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the explanation for the 607-day delay. It noted that the assessee was suffering from post polio disability and other serious health-related issues which prevented him from effectively pursuing the appellate proceedings. Considering the reasons assigned and the judicial approach of ordinarily adopting a liberal approach where sufficient cause is shown so that substantial justice is not defeated on technical grounds, the Tribunal was satisfied that the delay deserved to be condoned.
On the merits, the Tribunal noted that both the assessment and appellate order had been passed without the benefit of complete documentary evidence from the assessee, since the issue concerned verification of agricultural income and the assessee had expressed willingness to furnish all supporting evidence. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal considered that the matter deserved to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish supporting documents to substantiate the claim. The appeal was consequently allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2016-17, is directed against the order under section-250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 28.06.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.12.2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.6,090/- and showing agricultural income of Rs.20,32,250/- and same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny followed by notice u/s 143(2) & 143(1) of the Act. However, in response to the notices, assessee could not substantiate the claim properly before the Assessing Officer, therefore Assessing Officer on the basis of material available on record. He noticed that assessee has claimed huge agricultural income as per his return file and notice that gross agriculture receipt of Rs.67,44,850/- and agricultural expenditure claimed to the extent of Rs.20,32,250/- and the entire amount of Rs.20,32,250/- claim as exempted income for the assessment year under consideration. In order to verify the agricultural income Assessing Officer issued notice upon the assessee to furnish supporting evidence such as land record details, crops cultivated sales bills, expenditure vouchers and other relevant documents. However, assessee filed a simple online reply without any documentary evidence in support of the claim. In absence of the necessary details and supporting documents the Assessing Officer completed assessment on the basis of details available on record by determining the total income of assessee at Rs.69,03,550/-.
3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however due to non-appearance of consecutive date before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.
4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that there is a delay of 607-days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. In this connection, assessee has filed application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
5. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the decision of the authority below and he stated that assessee is a habitual defaulter, therefore assessment order as well as appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance. On submission of counter, the AR of the assessee stated that the assessee is suffering from serious physical ailment including disability arising out of from post polio applications and could not effectively pursue the appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that the assessee became aware on such order only when bank account attached from recovery of demand. Therefore, prayed that the delay may be condoned and one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee substantiate the claim of agricultural income by producing the relevant documentary evidence.
6. We have heard, the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is admitted position that there is a delay of 607-days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The explanation offered by the assessee is that assessee is suffering from post polio disability and other serious health related issue which prevented effectively pursuing the appellate proceedings. Considering, the reasons assigned by the assessee and keeping in mind that the judiciary ordinarily adopts liberal approach where sufficient cause so that substantial justice not defeated on technical grounds. We are satisfied that the delay deserved to be condoned. We further notice that the assessment as well as the appellate order has been passed without the benefit of complete documentary evidence from the assessee since the issue relates to the verification of the agricultural income and assessee has expressed his willingness furnished all supporting evidence. We are considered opinion that the matter deserve to be restored to the file of AO in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is also directed to furnish supporting documents, in order to substantiate its claim.
7. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open Court on 10/07/2026.
